[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 91A: In performing his duty to maintain order and disci- pline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof.

What does "suspend" mean in this law? For that matter what does "current session" mean? If "session" means, as it seems to, a period of time during which contestants are scheduled to play a particular set of boards (e.g., 27 in a pairs session), how do you suspend a contestant for part of a session?

[gnasher]

"Suspend" isn't defined, so it has its normal English meaning: the suspended pair doesn't participate in part of the event. In a pairs movement, presumably the boards they were due to play would be scored as A+/A-, or the offenders might be replaced by a substitute pair.

A session is defined in the Laws: "An extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May have different meanings as between Laws 4, 12C2 and 91.)"

In other words, it means whatever the Tournament Organizer says it means. A Tournament Organizer with a liking for detail may define it differently for different laws.

[GreenMan]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 01:33, said:

A session is defined in the Laws: "An extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May have different meanings as between Laws 4, 12C2 and 91.)"

In other words, it means whatever the Tournament Organizer says it means. A Tournament Organizer with a liking for detail may define it differently for different laws.

I read somewhere (Cohen or Bergen, I think) that "session" in a pairs event means the complete movement of 26 boards or whatever, but in e.g. a Swiss it may mean an individual match for some purposes.

[gnasher]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-03, 02:47, said:

I read somewhere (Cohen or Bergen, I think) that "session" in a pairs event means the complete movement of 26 boards or whatever, but in e.g. a Swiss it may mean an individual match for some purposes.

That's in the ACBL CoC for Swiss Teams events:
Whenever these, or other related conditions, refer to a match, this "match" conforms to the definition of "session" in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge.

[gnasher]

In England it's more complex:

80.6.1 Legal definition of session
For the purposes of:
· Correction Periods [see #146]
· When players may replace each other in Teams [see #4.1]
· When players may change directions [see #5.1]
· Adjusting Ave+ and Ave– [see #12.1.1]
a session ends
(a) In Swiss events, at the end of each match.
(b) Otherwise, when there is a major movement of the sections or there is a major break and corresponding calculation of scores.

80.6.2 Normal definition of session
For the purposes other than those listed in #80.6.1 a session ends when there is a major movement of the sections or there is a major break and corresponding calculation of scores.

When suspending a player the second definition applies, so an EBU TD can suspend a player for multiple matches.

[billw55]

Has anyone ever heard of such a suspension in practice?

[TMorris]

billw55, on 2013-June-03, 06:11, said:

Has anyone ever heard of such a suspension in practice?

Sure. I was even an interested bystander. About 12 or so years ago I was playing with someone I had never played with before (or since) in a teams event. We played against another local pair where there was - I assume - some history. My partner called one of our opponents a cheat and wouldn't withdraw it. The director threw him out of the event and told the rest of our team if we could find another team mate we could continue (no chance of that of course).

[lamford]

I presume that in the case of a suspension, the opponents get average plus or 3 IMPs for the remainder of the session.

As an aside, I presume that there is a regulation to prevent someone getting deliberately suspended for the remainder of the match when leading by more than 3 IMPs multiplied by the number of boards remaining.

If not, I am sure that Mourinho, or was it Rose in that infamous 1979 declaration (cricket, sorry), would take advantage of the rules?

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2013-June-03, 06:11, said:

Has anyone ever heard of such a suspension in practice?

Yes, I've done it. Someone was rude to me so I suspended him for the rest of the session. His team then had to withdraw because they didn't have a substitute. It's a useful thing to be able to do, because they can't appeal it (although my player wanted to), so you don't hold up the whole event assembling a committee and waiting for its response.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-June-03, 06:11, said:

Has anyone ever heard of such a suspension in practice?

I can tell you about one that I was told about in great detail.

My regular partner has been the Tournament Chairman for our unit for some time. He was running a Pro-Am event at a local sectional. One of the "pros" was being abusive to his "am" partner. When this came to the attention of the TC (after more than one pair complained - not the "am"), he came to the table and asked the "pro" to leave the table to speak to him privately. The "pro" refused. The TC asked again, and got the same response. The TC then told the "pro" that he had received several complains about his deportment, and if the situation did not change immediately, he would be suspended from the session and the rest of the tournament. This being the first session of the sectional, the suspension would cover the current session (Friday night) and all day Saturday and Sunday. The "pro," being pig-headed, started talking back at the TC. At that point, the TC said "out!" and that was it for the "pro" for the weekend.

Several days later, my friend, the TC, got a call from ACBL headquarters. He was asked if he had actually thrown out a player from the Sectional, and, of course, he replied that he had. He was told that, while he certainly had the sympathy from the ACBL, as the incident had been reported to them, the TC does not have the authority to do what he did. Only the chief tournament director had that authority (probably because the TD is paid ACBL staff while the TC is volunteer, but I don't know that for sure). So, the TC was told not to do it again, but at the same time told that he handled the situation appropriately.

By the way, the "pro" eventually came to his senses and apologized for his behavior.

[billw55]

gordontd, on 2013-June-03, 06:45, said:

Yes, I've done it. Someone was rude to me so I suspended him for the rest of the session. His team then had to withdraw because they didn't have a substitute. It's a useful thing to be able to do, because they can't appeal it (although my player wanted to), so you don't hold up the whole event assembling a committee and waiting for its response.

I am curious just what this player did. I would think that from time to time, a director would encounter mild to moderate rudeness that warrants a lesser response than suspension. So what constitutes going too far?

ArtK78, on 2013-June-03, 06:55, said:

I can tell you about one that I was told about in great detail.

...

By the way, the "pro" eventually came to his senses and apologized for his behavior.

I always wonder why "pros" play in such an event if they are going to act the way you described. Surely they could avoid the bad play simply by not playing? I don't get it at all but it happens. People are weird.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2013-June-03, 06:45, said:

Yes, I've done it. Someone was rude to me so I suspended him for the rest of the session. His team then had to withdraw because they didn't have a substitute. It's a useful thing to be able to do, because they can't appeal it (although my player wanted to), so you don't hold up the whole event assembling a committee and waiting for its response.

I think we should be more careful here. There is a difference between "you can't appeal" and "the AC cannot overturn this ruling, they can only recommend I change it, which I won't". In particular, appeal to the Regulating Authority is generally contingent on there having been an appeal at the event. IOW, you can't directly appeal a director's ruling to the RA, you have to go through the local appeal first. Of course, by the time the RA hears an appeal on a disciplinary matter whose punishment does not extend past the particular session in which it occurred, the question will be moot, but I don't think that matters to the law.

Added: Law 92 gives every contestant the right to appeal, subject only to the concurrence of both members of the partnership at pairs, or the team captain at teams. There is also, of course, the provision for sanction for an appeal without merit. I suspect that under the current laws, the team captain would not have concurred, due to that last bit.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2013-June-03, 07:29
Reason for edit: I had another thought. :-)

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-June-03, 06:45, said:

Yes, I've done it. Someone was rude to me so I suspended him for the rest of the session. His team then had to withdraw because they didn't have a substitute. It's a useful thing to be able to do, because they can't appeal it (although my player wanted to), so you don't hold up the whole event assembling a committee and waiting for its response.

Did you suspend him, or expel him? That is, would he have been allowed back in the next session?

Expulsions aren't unheard of, but I've never heard of a genuine suspension before.

ArtK78, on 2013-June-03, 06:55, said:

... he would be suspended from the session and the rest of the tournament. This being the first session of the sectional, the suspension would cover the current session (Friday night) and all day Saturday and Sunday.

Several days later, my friend, the TC, got a call from ACBL headquarters. He was asked if he had actually thrown out a player from the Sectional, and, of course, he replied that he had. He was told that, while he certainly had the sympathy from the ACBL, as the incident had been reported to them, the TC does not have the authority to do what he did. Only the chief tournament director had that authority (probably because the TD is paid ACBL staff while the TC is volunteer, but I don't know that for sure). So, the TC was told not to do it again, but at the same time told that he handled the situation appropriately.

The ACBL were both right and wrong. This was a disqualification, not a suspension. To disqualify a contestant, the TD has to obtain the approval of the Tournament Organiser. But that applies to the Chief TD too.

[gnasher]

Law 91 refers to suspending or expelling a contestant. A contestant is "in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates". The examples we've seen so far involved the removal of a player, with the implication that a five-man team could have continued in the event, and in ArtK's example it sounds as though the remaining player could have continued with a substitute.

Is it actually legal to suspend or expel only one member of a contestant?

[RMB1]

A player was suspended for the remainder of a session, in a multi-session pairs event. After further discussion with the TD and the chief TD, this was commuted to half a session - the player got to play a few rounds at the end of the session but had 40% on approximately half the boards in the session.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 07:18, said:

I think we should be more careful here. There is a difference between "you can't appeal" and "the AC cannot overturn this ruling, they can only recommend I change it, which I won't". In particular, appeal to the Regulating Authority is generally contingent on there having been an appeal at the event. IOW, you can't directly appeal a director's ruling to the RA, you have to go through the local appeal first. Of course, by the time the RA hears an appeal on a disciplinary matter whose punishment does not extend past the particular session in which it occurred, the question will be moot, but I don't think that matters to the law.

It's like a poor person saying "You can't sue me." Yes, legally you can sue anyone, but there may be no point in it -- you can't get blood from a stone. So you effectively can't sue them, and in the same way you can't effectively appeal in the above case.

[chrism]

billw55, on 2013-June-03, 07:08, said:

I am curious just what this player did. I would think that from time to time, a director would encounter mild to moderate rudeness that warrants a lesser response than suspension. So what constitutes going too far?

The only time that I have suspended a player was at a club game when a player twice in a session played a (non-obvious) card spontaneously as dummy, on both occasions falsely asserted that declarer had called the card (immediately contradicted by declarer as well as by defenders, and he was not hard of hearing), and being told of the (lenient) quarter-board disciplinary penalty for the second offense, threw a tantrum, a few insults and his cards (how's that for zeugma:)?), so I told him to leave. The incident resulted in a month's suspension from the club and subsequently much improved behavior.

On other occasions I have reached the point of threatening ejection without carrying it out; in a large tournament that usually takes the form "would you like to come with me to explain to the Chief Director why you should be allowed to continue in this event". In general, it is not so much the gravity of an offence as its persistence - refusal to quieten down, apologize, follow instructions or whatever is required to restore order - that would put a player in jeopardy.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-June-03, 10:19, said:

It's like a poor person saying "You can't sue me." Yes, legally you can sue anyone, but there may be no point in it -- you can't get blood from a stone. So you effectively can't sue them, and in the same way you can't effectively appeal in the above case.

Nevertheless they are entitled to appeal if they want to, and the TD is not empowered to deny them this right. There is, of course, as I already mentioned, the possibility of an AWM warning or penalty.

[blackshoe]

chrism, on 2013-June-03, 11:20, said:

The only time that I have suspended a player was at a club game when a player twice in a session played a (non-obvious) card spontaneously as dummy, on both occasions falsely asserted that declarer had called the card (immediately contradicted by declarer as well as by defenders, and he was not hard of hearing), and being told of the (lenient) quarter-board disciplinary penalty for the second offense, threw a tantrum, a few insults and his cards (how's that for zeugma:)?), so I told him to leave. The incident resulted in a month's suspension from the club and subsequently much improved behavior.

On other occasions I have reached the point of threatening ejection without carrying it out; in a large tournament that usually takes the form "would you like to come with me to explain to the Chief Director why you should be allowed to continue in this event". In general, it is not so much the gravity of an offence as its persistence - refusal to quieten down, apologize, follow instructions or whatever is required to restore order - that would put a player in jeopardy.

I've never suspended anyone. In the last twenty years, I've seen it happen once. The player involved was rude to everyone at the table, and when the director arrived he was rude to and argumentative with her. She gave him three opportunities to STFU, and then she suspended him for thirty days. No one ever had a problem with him again. And this director, BTW, is one who vehemently refuses to give a PP for any reason.

[billw55]

chrism, on 2013-June-03, 11:20, said:

... so I told him to leave. The incident resulted in a month's suspension from the club and subsequently much improved behavior.

blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 12:00, said:

... She gave him three opportunities to STFU, and then she suspended him for thirty days. No one ever had a problem with him again.

Which goes to show that penalties work. Too many take the line of thinking that penalties will make people leave and clubs will dwindle. Not so!